I'm writing a small game for Android in Unity. Basically the person have to guess whats on the photo. Now my boss wants me to add an additional function-> after successful/unsuccessful guess the player will get the panel to rate the photo (basically like or dislike), because we want to track which photos are not good/remove the photos after a couple of successful guesses.
My understanding is that if we want to add +1 to the variable in Firebase first I have to make the call and get it then we have to make a separate call with adding 1 to the value we got. I was wandering if there is a more efficient way to do it?
Thanks for any suggestions!
Instead of requesting firebase when you want to add ,you can request firebase in the beginning (onCreate like method) and save the object and then use it when you want to update it.
thanks
Well, one thing you can do is to store your data temporarily in some object, but NOT send it to Firebase right away. Instead, you can send the data to Firebase in times when the app/game is about to get paused/minimized; hence, reducing potential lags and increasing player satisfaction. OnApplicationPause(bool) is one of such functions that gets called when the game is minimized.
To do what you want, I would recommend using a Transaction instead of just doing a SetValueAsync. This lets you change values in your large shared database atomically, by first running your transaction against the local cache and later against the server data if it differs (see this question/answer).
This gets into some larger interesting bits of the Firebase Unity plugin. Reads/writes will run against your local cache, so you can do things like attach a listener to the "likes" node of a picture. As your cache syncs online and your transaction runs, this callback will be asynchronously triggered letting you keep the value up to date without worrying about syncing during app launch/shutdown/doing your own caching logic. This also means that generally, you don't have to worry too much about your online/offline state throughout your game.
Related
I have been scouring the internet for days on a solution to this problem.
That is, how to handle aggregation when there is no network connection? I have a task management app that looks to aggregate meta data about user tasks. For example, the task can contain tags that can be aggregated to be shown in a dashboard to the user on a daily basis. This would be easy if the user is always online, so I could use transaction or cloud function to aggregate, but when the user is offline, the aggregation will appear to be incorrect, until the user restores their network connection.
Aggregation queries are explained here:
https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/solutions/aggregation
Which states a limitation:
Offline support - Client-side transactions will fail when the user's
device is offline, which means you need to handle this case in your
app and retry at the appropriate time.
However, there has yet to be any example or documentation on how to 'handle this case'. How would I go about addressing this problem?
Some thoughts:
I could cache the item if a transaction fails. This item will be aggregated on top of the stored aggregation. However, going down this line would mean that I can't take advantage of the Firestore's "offline mode", because I'm using my own cache on every write while offline anyway.
I could aggregate on demand. That is, never store the aggregation. This is going to be very heavy on read depending on how many tasks a user has. Furthermore, if the aggregation will need to be shared as insights to other users, this option will not work because other users do not have access to the tasks.
I'm at a loss and any help would be appreciated, thanks!
After a lot of research and trial and error I found a solution that can address this problem gracefully.
FieldValue.increment to the rescue.
What FieldValue.increment does is bypass the use of transaction while respecting the default Firestore's offline cache behaviour. It requires the use of set or update on the field directly. The drawback is the inability to use the 'withConverter' on the collection for type safety. I'm willing to live with the drawback considering how useful FieldValue.increment is.
I've done multiple tests and can confirm that the values can be incremented/decremented multiple times locally while offline. This offline value is reflected in a get or snapshot call to the cache. When the network connection is restored, the values are updated on the server.
The value itself is not stored on the cache, it simply stores the "difference" in the FieldValue sentinel for when it is time to update it on the server.
This method only works with incrementing and decrementing values. Storing averages will not be possible using this method. That is because the true total number of items is not known at the time of its calculation when offline.
Instead, the total number of items are stored along side the total value. The average is then calculated when and as needed. In this way the average will always be accurate from a local perspective when offline, and it will also be accurate when online when the total value and count has been synced.
Let's say I have a collection called persons and another collection called cities with a field population. When a Person is created in a City, I would like to increment the population field in the corresponding city.
I have two options.
Create a onCreate trigger function. Find the city document and increment using FieldValue.increment(1).
Create an HTTPS callable cloud function to create the person. The cloud function executes a transaction in which the person is created and the population is incremented.
The first one is simpler and I am using it right now. But, I am wondering if there could be cases where the onCreate is not called due to some glitch...
I am thinking of moving to the second option. I am wondering if there are any disadvantages. Does HTTPS callable function cost more?
The only problem I see with the HTTPS callables would be that if something fails you would need to handle that on your client side. That would be (at least for me) a little bit to much logic for the client side.
What I can recommend you after almost 4 years experience with exactly that problem is a solution with a virtual queue. I had a long dicussion on that theme here and even with the Firebase ppl on the last in person Google IO and Firebase Summit.
Our problem was that there where those glitches and even if they happend sometimes the changes and transaction failed due to too much requests. After trying every offical recommendation like the shard counters etc. we ended up creating a virtual queue where each onCreate adds an entry to just a Firestore or RTD list/collection and another function that runs eaither by crone or another trigger (that doesn't matter). That cloud function handles each entry in the queue one by one and starts again for each of them to awoid timouts and memeroy limits. We made sure one handler/calculation is enought for a single function to handle it.
This method was the only bullet proof one that could handle thousands of new entries in a second without having an issue. The only downside is that it takes more time than an usual trigger because each entries is calculated one by one. If your calculations are smaller you could do them in batches (that is how we started to).
The problem
I have a firebase application in combination with Ionic. I want the user to create a group and define a time, when the group is about to be deleted automatically. My first idea was to create a setTimeout(), save it and override it whenever the user changes the time. But as I have read, setTimeout() is a bad solution when used for long durations (because of the firebase billing service). Later I have heard about Cron, but as far as I have seen, Cron only allows to call functions at a specific time, not relative to a given time (e.g. 1 hour from now). Ideally, the user can define any given time with a datetime picker.
My idea
So my idea is as following:
User defines the date via native datepicker and the hour via some spinner
The client writes the time into a seperate firebase-database with a reference of following form: /scheduledJobs/{date}/{hour}/{groupId}
Every hour, the Cron task will check all the groups at the given location and delete them
If a user plans to change the time, he will just delete the old value in scheduledJobs and create a new one
My question
What is the best way to schedule the automatic deletion of the group? I am not sure if my approach suits well, since querying for the date may create a very flat and long list in my database. Also, my approach is limited in a way, that only full hours can be taken as the time of deletion and not any given time. Additionally I will need two inputs (date + hour) from the user instead of just using a datetime (which also provides me the minutes).
I believe what you're looking for is node schedule. Basically, it allows you to run serverside cron jobs, it has the ability to take date-time objects and schedule the job at that time. Since I'm assuming you're running a server for this, this would allow you to schedule the deletion at whatever time you wish based on the user input.
An alternative to TheCog's answer (which relies on running a node server) is to use Cloud Functions for Firebase in combination with a third party server (e.g. cron-jobs.org) to schedule their execution. See this video for more or this blog post for an alternative trigger.
In either of these approaches I recommend keeping only upcoming triggers in your database. So delete the jobs after you've processed them. That way you know it won't grow forever, but rather will have some sort of fixed size. In fact, you can query it quite efficiently because you know that you only need to read jobs that are scheduled before the next trigger time.
If you're having problems implementing your approach, I recommend sharing the minimum code that reproduces where you're stuck as it will be easier to give concrete help that way.
I have two different nodes in database.
all posts
users
As per the fan-out model when a user adds a post , it gets updated at both all posts and users/uid/posts.
Each post consists of a like button which displays the number of likes.
When a user clicks on it the like should increase by +1.
According to the docs, we use transactionfor this kind of process.
But the problem with using transaction is that it updates only one node as far as i know
But my problem is how shall i update this transaction in both the nodes as mentioned above
Shall i use update method
What is the way to use transaction that gets updated at both the nodes
You can push all your logic for updating the database onto the server side with Cloud Functions for Firebase. Use can use a database trigger to respond to data being written in the database, then execute some JavaScript to make sure the fan-out finishes correctly. It will have the advantage of making sure all the changes happen without depending on the client.
Transactions can't modify data at two different locations at once, but you will still probably want to use them in your client and Cloud Functions to make sure concurrent writes will not have problems.
In the firebase example (https://gist.github.com/anantn/4323981), to add an user to the game, we attach the transaction method to playerListRef. Now, every time firebase attempts to update data, it will call the callback passed to the transaction method with the list of userid of all players. If my game supports thousands of users to join at a time, every instance this method executes, the entire user list will be downloaded and passed which will be bad.
If this is true, what is the recommended way to assign users then?
This is specifically what Firebase was designed to handle. If your application needs to actually assign player numbers, this example is the way to go. Otherwise, if the players just need to be in the same "game" or "room" without any notion of ordering you could remove the transaction code to speed things up a bit. The snippet as well as the backend have handled the number of concurrent connections you've mentioned—if you're seeing any specific problems with your code or behavior with Firebase that appears to be a bug, please contact us at support#firebase.com and we can dig into it.